There are quite a few companies that you don't see any sort of notice on because they do not want to store cookies on your computer unless you sign up for an account, then that sort of consent is implicit. Companies want to track you, store data on your PC, and keep it there for long times in exchange for letting you read some content someone posted years ago. The EU legislation requires them to make it explicit when they do this.
 
Advertising companies are forced to 'make it annoying' because their entire existing is to erode your privacy. The harder it is for you to click a toggle in the 600 plus analytic trackers some websites have (and i've seen some with this many), the more likely you are to just say "Screw this I want my content now" and just click accept.

Its not misinformation. The vast majority of websites you go to ARE NOT sites you have logged into. When creating an account you can easily opt in or opt out at the same time you're giving your own personal details. There are very few websites I go to (none in fact) where I click a preference and want it to be saved in a cookie where I have not logged in, and if I created an account I, again, can give consent when I create my account, and I *never get asked again*.
 
Of course you need to ask for consent. It does address third party cookies and tracking consent as well, except that most companies don't follow it, most websites list ~600 plus third parties, and the average user doesn't give two shits about their privacy.
 
Why the hell would I want a developer from a random website saving shit on my hard disk that I didn't explicitly consent to?? I know the internet has gotten shit but I can't believe people want to remove one of the few positive privacy things that have come out in recent years.

The BCG vaccine has also been found to be effective against bladder cancer. One of the two manufacturers bailed out of the market about a decade ago, limiting supply for both TB and bladder cancer.

They just opened a new manufacturing facility in Durham this past Spring to make much more. Not sure if it's producing yet, but it was a four-year build.

TB affects so few Americans that you can't even get BCG for TB prevention if you want it. Hopefully high-risk folks will be able to elect to get it soon.

> The software had a built-in limit of 200 bot detection features. The enlarged file contained more than 200 entries. The software crashed when it encountered the unexpected file size.

A built in limit is:

if ( rule_count > 200 )
    log_urgent('rule count exceeded')
    break
else
    rule_count++
    process_rule

This sounds like it did not have a built-in limit but rather walked off the end of an array or something when the count went over 200.

I heard earlier today that a court has determined that since governments are using all of this data, including license plates, that a FoIA request for all of the license plate data gathered from Flock in a city area for a range of dates was valid.

They want to have a power advantage over their serfs but turning their advantage into a burden changes that dynamic. Something to look into for those so inclined.

We seem to be well past the point of being able to expect them to follow the Law or "do the right thing".

> I see no reason why the government shouldn't be allowed to buy the same data that jim-bob the farmer can purchase.

Jim-bob is likely to face some serious problems if he smashes down your door and drags you away in a pre-dawn raid.

The IRS people get a promotion.

This is why the Constitution places strict limits on the actions of government agents.

(in its original interpretation)

Here I am about to think "damn, people losing their jobs to AI" and then I realize its the "pizza in 4-easy payments" people.

They should probably go all-in on AI as soon as possible. For their investors' sake.

OK, that was pretty funny. +1.

Irrationality. I remember it well. Quoting Wikipedia: "Irrational exuberance" is the phrase used by the then-Federal Reserve Board chairman, Alan Greenspan, in a December 1996 speech given at the American Enterprise Institute during the dot-com bubble of the 1990s.

The PayPal debit card pays 5% on the category of your choosing - Groceries, restaurants, fuel, etc.

Bitcoin relies entirely on SHA256 ASIC's for hashing and they typically need replacing every year or two because more efficient models come out making the old ones unprofitable, especially at halvings. Due to the RoI and first-mover advantage the profitable ones are very expensive.

If you want to heat your home with proof-of-work, use a coin that uses RandomX or some other deliberately ASIC-resistant algorithm (usually CPU mining).

You can pool mine on an old CPU and still get a few pennies for your efforts, though if you want to invest in an EPYC and have other uses for it (maybe you have work jobs to run during the day and want more heat on cold nights) it could actually be profitable.

Resistive electric heating is still a very expensive way to heat, though some people don't have better options. There's a development near where I am that was built shortly after Nixon announced Project Independence and every house (cold climate) has wall-to-wall electric baseboard heating.

I agree with this post. A $200 million failure clearly refutes the first portion of the sentence: "Concord wasn't a bad game, but it just didn't generate enough interest with enough players". Heck, where I work, a $200 million failure would have someone sent to jail.

I completely agree.

Too much safety. Too much regulation.

Not enough creativity. Not enough dealing with the imperfect.

We really need to amp up freedom.

Yeah. I see numbers like that and I feel late to the party.

It'll be at least half of that in ten years.

The Zoomers have no interest in cable TV.